Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

The carbon-14 dates in this instance now match, at last, with KNOWN history. (Is that good news for YECs given that many radiocarbon dates - including probably of lifeforms that probably did not eat a marine diet - are much older than 6,000 years.)

(Reposting because I fouled up. There are two links here, and the wrong one was featured. -CBB)

I have a confession to make: I am not a real Christian, but instead, I am a pathological liar. Yes, I present science and theology affirming creation and refuting evolution, and lying, to get you to believe in a holy God that hates deceit. But then, this determination comes from a "former Christian" who knows nothing about theology or the finished work of Christ on the cross, nor of how salvation works. He also has called God a liar.

Strange that someone who believes God does not exist (except when he wants to call God a liar) and that Hell does not exist is certain that I am going there despite my biblical confession of faith.

The Christian doctrine of hell: conscious, painful, separation from God for all eternity for those who refuse God’s salvation. Perhaps the most difficult doctrine to deal with – for both Christians and non-Christians alike. This is such a difficult teaching there are plenty of people, cults and religions who outright deny it. After the denial of the deity of Christ, the doctrine of hell is one of the first Biblical teachings to go. In its place – everything from annihilation of the soul to universal salvation. Apparently the doctrine of hell is so scary even annihilation – eternal nonexistence – is preferable to the Biblical doctrine of hell. According to one account, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory (a temporary place of punishment to pay for any un-forgiven sins) came about because punishment consisting of eternal wrath could not be countenanced by at least one early church father. But the doctrine of purgatory is strictly a Catholic add on teaching – it’s not in the Bible. And it’s not what we’re talking about. Let’s be clear about what we are talking about. http://rationalfaith.com/2018/05/hell-is-for-liars/"

Caldwell's article discusses liars and lies but fails even to MENTION the ninth commandment at Exodus 20.

Sorensen (in the first half of those words quoted above) is referring to me. He does not quote a single one of my accusations highlighting how he does indeed LIE pathologically much of the time (sometimes about science but usually about PEOPLE he detests, people like me). He cannot however wish away this thread:viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=1095

If you are young earth/'biblical' creationist God has given you a special dispensation to LIE about people who criticise 'biblical' creationism - whether bearing false witness about what the people in question say (Sorensen has done that about me repeatedly for years ie he fails to address my words while declaring 'I proved him right') or by declaring that if they believe in science that has been rejected by 'biblical' creationists (and often accepted by moderate and genuinely rational, pro-science Christian believers) they are 'lying' and on the way to hell.

This special dispensation only applies to 'biblical' creationists. Presumably Exodus 20:16 does apply to everyone who is not a 'biblical' creationist.

So - there will be lots of deliberate serial liars along with the honest folk in heaven - they breached the ninth commandment but they believed in all the right Bible doctrines (that of course includes the creation doctrines).

A H-RPS If Duane and Bob reply that they genuinely 'forgot' about the ninth commandment and admit that it does indeed apply to all 'biblical' creationists as well as everybody else, I will of course acknowledge their admission.

[CORRECTION on 6 June; the two words in square brackets were accidentally omitted originally, I've only just noticed when re-reading the post.]

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

But of course Coppedge and Sorensen twist the meaning of what has been discovered. They ignore the fact that the Gobi is a cold desert and that there is at least one glacier or indeed icefield there TODAY - Yolyn Am. So there would have been a pre-existing glacier before the (last) ice age too. Yet the fool/liar Coppedge (because he believes there was a 'global flood' just before the fictional YEC ice age) writes: "The findings reveal that cold alone is not sufficient to form glaciers". NOBODY thinks that it is. "Actually, what is needed is abundant precipitation". Even if astronomical factors (rejected by astronomer and YEC Coppedge) were not enough, that 'abundant precipitation' clearly NEVER EVER happened in the Gobi DESERT during the (last) ice age. But idiot Sorensen also fails to notice the problem: "The Genesis Flood models provide necessary and sufficient conditions to explain the Ice Age, however." LIAR. In the Gobi Desert those models are now 100 per cent FALSIFIED. The glaciers and icefield should have grown (or formed in the first place with all that alleged rain and then snow) when it got colder. They DID NOT. The pre-existing glacier shrank due to drought and melting or sublimation - not particularly surprising to real scientists.

Remember - the YEC position is that the Gobi Desert icefield and glaciers FORMED during a 'post-flood ice age'. How could a glacier shrink - and be formed - at the same time?

And these same morons see glaciers shrinking worldwide TODAY - and REJECT man-caused climate change (for purely religious and political reasons).

Just in case he is a censoring fraud siding unjustly with Sorensen (he may not be) as well as a 'biblical' creationist, here are my two posts (the first of which is nearly 48 hours old) that he has so far failed to clear under his recent blog:http://rationalfaith.com/2018/05/hell-is-for-liars/

(1)Sorensen claims of me: “I believe the accusation is actually because I am a biblical creationist and present evidence affirming creation and refuting evolution, and have demonstrated his lack of logical thinking ability”. I have specifically highlighted, with detailed evidence, lying by Sorensen – at that BCSE thread (the substance of which he does his best to pretend does not exist). I am not opposed to people trying to help others get saved, I am opposed to people using deceit and false accusations whilst trying to do that – as Sorensen does on an almost daily basis. He has also not demonstrated, despite him claiming otherwise for years, that I lack ‘logical thinking ability’. “Far more convenient to hate the person than to rationally deal with the substance of an argument.” I do deal rationally with the arguments Bob presents that I object to. He does not return the favour.On Duane’s first response to me, readers should view my post in full rather than simply relying on Duane’s (highly edited) extracts. I would also make clear that I was not accusing Duane (on the basis of the 1 May post) of lying about people who criticise claims of ‘biblical’ creationists – but of apparently sanctioning that others do so (Bob bears false witness about me and if Duane’s viewed Bob’s blogs and facebook pages he would see examples). In fact I see that what I have already said also fully addresses Duane’s second response. It appears that he misunderstood what I was saying about him – as I was not suggesting that Duane breaks (or feels he can ignore) the ninth commandment – as Bob regularly does. (But it was odd that Duane’s article failed to mention Exodus 20:16.) Whilst I do – sometimes – call Bob’s interpretation of science/scientific evidence (or that in articles he shares) ‘lies’ (he returns the favour), my main accusation is that (as shown in that long-running BCSE thread) he bears false witness about people like me who challenge his dodgy claims about science/scientific evidence. Only last week on Facebook he wrote (it was about me even though he did not quote my full name): “This is coming from someone who constantly ignores evidence and scrambles to find rescuing devices, no matter how outdated or irrelevant, for facts that creationists posts. He’s also in no position to DEMAND that people talk about HIS subjects while he ignores other material, but he demands that people take him seriously when he has not given anyone a reason to do so.Their fundamentally flawed worldview is falling apart and they know it. Instead of repenting and believing Jesus, they attack more. Haywire is a blatant hypocrite, unable to deal with logic, and is consumed by hatred. -CBB”.I accept that Duane is not sanctioning that ‘biblical’ creationists break the ninth commandment. Something that Bob frequently does.

(2)I read your point 2 in full before offering any comments. And your piece was entitled ‘Hell is for Liars’. A ‘liar’ being normally defined as someone who tells lies. (PS I assume my other comment, which I have saved, awaits moderation?)

Instead of allowing my comments, reproduced above, he's tried to justify why he has hidden them - and posted a (polite) attack instead:"Jesus said “”Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” (Luke 12.14). I am happy to reply to comments on the topic of a given blog post here. But rationalfaith.com is not the place for me to judge an off topic debate, nor should comments be posted that continue disputes (particularly personal ones) that are off-topic that started elsewhere.Thus “he said, she said” (or “he said, he said” as the case may be) type of off-topics comments and disputes will not allowed to grow and proper here. If your comment is not published, it is likely either because 1. There are comments too far off topic, or 2. There are personal attacks which are never appropriate. (Which I discuss here: Misguided attacks by evolutionistsTry reposting after narrowing it and staying on the topic of the blog post."

Caldwell is basically LYING to his readers by implying that my longer censored post (I have taken on-screen photos of it 'awaiting moderation') was all 'off topic' or 'personal attacks' (because it discussed Sorensen after he had a go at me without naming me). Whereas the post included content that was fully on topic. Such as: "On Duane’s first response to me, readers should view my post in full rather than simply relying on Duane’s (highly edited) extracts. I would also make clear that I was not accusing Duane (on the basis of the 1 May post) of lying about people who criticise claims of ‘biblical’ creationists – but of apparently sanctioning that others do so ...". And: "In fact I see that what I have already said also fully addresses Duane’s second response. It appears that he misunderstood what I was saying about him – as I was not suggesting that Duane breaks (or feels he can ignore) the ninth commandment – as Bob regularly does. (But it was odd that Duane’s article failed to mention Exodus 20:16.)" And: "I accept that Duane is not sanctioning that ‘biblical’ creationists break the ninth commandment. Something that Bob frequently does."

My longer post was not in the least bit confrontational towards Caldwell (I sought to contrast him with Sorensen) - but he has STILL censored it. Because I dared criticise a fellow 'biblical' creationist - who had STARTED the conversation.

Ironic that the author of a post entitled 'Hell is for Liars' should misleadingly claim: "If your comment is not published, it is likely either because 1. There are comments too far off topic, or 2. There are personal attacks which are never appropriate." He should have allowed the comment but warned that any further comments that were ENTIRELY off topic or personal attacks would not be allowed. Note that Sorensen called me a 'furious atheopath' - but my reply addressing Sorensen's conduct has been unfairly zapped, even though I did not make empty accusations but supported them with the link to this BCSE thread.

Funny how 'biblical' creationists are almost invariably high class bigots opposed to free speech and open discussion or criticism of THEIR frequently extra biblical claims.

Bigots who side with other dishonest 'biblical' creationists against honest critics (this thread shows Sorensen's serial dishonesty but doubtless Caldwell is 'turning a blind eye').

This thread is again being notified to Caldwell via his blog and via a (wide circulation) email.

Remember that these people OPPOSE doing anything about climate change (which is caused by humans exploiting, even if it has been done of necessity, fossil fuels and other natural resources eg forestry products). Whilst at the same time they are so bigoted they must declare David Attenborough 'wrong' about the Bible, specifically Genesis 1:28.

The new CMI article quotes Genesis 1:28 and then states that David Attenborough said on the TV programme: "That made it clear that, according to the Bible, humanity could exploit the natural world as they wished." Grigg disagrees. He writes: "Not so. God gave the ‘dominion mandate’ of Genesis 1:28 to the first humans, Adam and Eve, after He had created them both “in His image” (Genesis 1:26). Man was thus appointed to be God’s ‘regent’ on Earth."

Yet CMI previously made statements that are not dissimilar to what Attenborough said - see: https://creation.com/earth-day-is-chris ... t-problemsThe authors of the earlier article (Sarfati and Wieland) refer to something called 'benevolent radah' and then say: "This ‘dominion mandate’, as it has been called, has usually been taken as an instruction and mandate to bring the Earth into submission for mankind’s benefit". Even if it is 'benevolent' it is still bringing Earth into submission - which sounds like the human activities of mining and logging and the like - which exploit Earth's natural resources even if the motivation is not wanton deliberate destruction. The author also attempts to say that treating other species with 'special favour' is an inconsistent stance for evolutionists (why?) but apparently it isn't for creationists (apparently because creationists believe humans were created ex nihilo and uniquely in the image of God).

Apart from the Attenborough point where it's a matter of interpretation, Sorensen repeats a number of tired lies about scientific evidence (he may be echoing the rest of that voluminous Grigg article - which I do not propose to read). Namely: "The following article discusses several other things Darwin and his disciples inaccurately believe, including alleged "transitional forms" such as Archaeopteryx, and several other important subjects that are unfriendly for diatoms-to-Darwin evolution. Attenborough and many others go to a great deal of effort to deny the Creator his rightful place, and they do it with fanciful tales and assertions that have no evidence." There is plenty of real fossil evidence for transitional forms but creationists lie that none of them are transitional and then use this claim to justify lying that there is 'no evidence'.

And, as I started off by implying, in what way is burning more fossil fuels instead of moving to a low carbon economy (or causing extinctions) 'not' subduing and exploiting the Earth and exercising destructive dominion? If 'biblical' creationists REALLY believe in a 'benevolent radah' they should STOP their LYING about the cause of climate change and stop undermining international efforts to cut humanity's greenhouse gas emissions. If.

The meat machine known as Ashley Haworth-Roberts is oblivious to his own irony. He hypocritically calls the title used by meat machine Cowboy Bob Sorensen as 'ludicrous tabloid", then titles his own threads 'YEC 'Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar exposed', 'Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans', and others. He uses loaded terminology to poison the well here with 'A correction made by SCIENTISTS not YEC science deniers'. Then he wonders why the Cowboy has the good sense not to waste time in extended dialogue here.

a_haworthroberts wrote:Apart from the Attenborough point where it's a matter of interpretation, Sorensen repeats a number of tired lies about scientific evidence (he may be echoing the rest of that voluminous Grigg article - which I do not propose to read).

Ashley Haworth-Roberts is an expert in all things science as well as a theologian. Elsewhere he was a Hebraist. His amazing mind is able to grasp what is being said and that everyone is wrong except him. This behavior was described by Cowboy Bob Sorensen. https://stormbringer005.blogspot.com.tr ... heist.html

The meat machine known as Ashley Haworth-Roberts is oblivious to his own irony. He hypocritically calls the title used by meat machine Cowboy Bob Sorensen as 'ludicrous tabloid", then titles his own threads 'YEC 'Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar exposed', 'Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans', and others. He uses loaded terminology to poison the well here with 'A correction made by SCIENTISTS not YEC science deniers'. Then he wonders why the Cowboy has the good sense not to waste time in extended dialogue here.

Mister Gordons (your referenced my post dated 14 May):Do you deny that Ken Ham is a rabble rouser? Do you deny that most people who call themselves (and often are by profession) 'scientists' also would NOT identify as (young earth) creationists and might also (if they examined the claims of young earth creationists) criticise them as pseudo-science or science denial? (OK I admit that sometimes I get slightly carried away and use capital letters.)I do deny that Viking bones 'fight' carbon-14. That is not merely tabloid it is utterly ludicrous and misleading.

I know Bob does not have the guts, but since you come here regularly would you perhaps care to discuss the science of this case of corrected carbon dating (for which my post thanked Bob incidentally since otherwise this discovery concerning the marine reservoir effect might well have passed me by)?

Thank you for your second post praising my abilities. However you praise me too much. In particular I have never claimed to be a 'Hebraist' (a word I just looked up to verify the spelling partly because sometimes American English varies from English English).

I venture to suggest that you, Bob and I all have average intelligence. The difference being that I have a willingness to learn about 'popular' science (my academic background at Lancaster University graduating 1981 was French and German ie language and literature not remotely anything scientific). I suggest that by contrast you and Bob have an unwillingness to learn (other than to learn the claims of young earth creationists and learn 'logic'). So yes, maybe I do know more than you both do. But, if so, knowledge is available to all and only the most dimwitted with a very low IQ cannot benefit from it. It is pretty clear from what you and Bob write that neither of you has a very low IQ.

At Jeremiah 13:23''Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots?Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.''

Yes - once a pathological liar, always a pathological liar, 'Cowboy' Bob:http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2018/05 ... -past.htmlReferencing something from the highly biased and simplistic Institute for Creation Research:https://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-a ... -abruptly/The articles referenced at footnotes 2 and 3 here in NO way suggest either that dinosaurs had no known ancestors or that dinosaurs somehow 'failed' to evolve - they do report conclusions that 'sudden' dinosaur speciation and diversification after 13 million years on the planet followed a period of dramatic climate change. But that does not stop these young earth creationist liars from claiming that dinosaurs first appeared 'abruptly' or that they had 'no evolutionary past'. Even though it is abundantly clear that this paper is discussing the 'initial diversification' and 'key expansion' of dinosaurs:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 105803.htm

Contrary to what you suggest Bob, fossils of what are believed to be ancestors of dinosaurs, which lived in the Triassic, have been uncovered. Other species of archosaur not classified as true dinosaurs that are also considered ancestors of crocodilians. I found that out by searching on the internet. Instead of trusting a proven liar like yourself (who trusts in a 10 year old quote by one scientist that is given in a book by another young earth creationist that is cited by the ICR). Even though that same scientist co-wrote this two years later:http://www.evolbiol.ru/docs/docs/large_ ... rs2009.pdfHe previously co-wrote this:http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/11 ... matter.pdf

And Bob is never one for holding back on the lying. Thus he claims that we ''do not have evidence'' of dinosaurs evolving into birds (presumably because there is ''no history of dinosaur evolution''). So much for YECs claiming we all have the 'same evidence'.

And the lying gets even worse:''Some of these jaspers still think that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, though that has been largely refuted for decades. When desperate to preserve status of the Darwin death cult, uneducated ideologues call creationary scientists "liars" and play word games while engaging in selective citing and yes, ignoring information that gets them on the prod.''

He of course WON'T engage with this - as it is much easier for him to FALSELY accuse its writer of playing 'word games' instead of addressing the content. Which its author continues to stand by. Content, which if posted on his Facebook page, Sorensen would STILL not address but would instead censor:viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3891#p52093

Well, the word game I like to play is truthfully exposing misinformation from young earth creationists and other pseudo-scientists (and certain politicians).

This (latest) episode reveals that Bob is no accidental liar but a deliberate, pathological one. I exposed Timothy Clarey the writer of that previous ICR 'What's all the flap about?' article as a cynical purveyor of agenda-driven misinformation. I showed him lying about how scientists now classify Archaeopteryx, lying that there are ''no fossils of any type of transitions between dinosaurs and birds'' and lying (by wilfully ignoring strong evidence to the contrary) that ''birds have always been birds by design''.

Bob has read my post and is inviting his band of followers to view it. But, as ever, his response to it is to ignore its content and instead post propaganda falsely claiming that I am 'uneducated', engaging in something called 'selective citing', and playing 'word games'. Bob Sorensen is EVIL.

Ashley Haworth-RobertsPS And the lying continues on his Facebook page (where truth tellers get banned):https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/''Featured Post: "Dinosaurs Had No Evolutionary Past"Scientists are admitting more openly now what creationists have said all along, that there is no fossil evidence for dinosaur evolution.''

Do you have to live in an imaginary world rather than the real one, whilst falsely attacking and condemning everyone else, in order to sustain personal faith in young earth creationism? That's is the distinct impression that I have gained from reading Sorensen's words and viewing his online behaviour for well over 5 years. So yes - the Bible is right about him.''

Or perhaps Bob can answer this one (should Simon Terry of AiG, or maybe Aussie YEC John Mackay, bother to answer my email shown below himself we could compare answers):https://australianmuseum.net.au/introdu ... -australia"There are over 1000 species of native Australian snails and slugs." (Native may mean indigenous rather than necessarily endemic - but the reference is to snails and slugs not deliberately or accidentally introduced by humans eg because some snails are edible.)

http://askjohnmackay.com/snails-how-did ... the-world/Imho this sometimes informative piece simply does NOT answer the question that was posed regarding snails re-colonising the world 'post-flood'. How did ANY native and land-based snails reach Australia post-flood? Perhaps they've lived there for millions of years? Will you address this in your talk at Rugby on 3 July I wonder.

Mr Ashley Haworth-RobertsPS - not mentioned in detail in the version forwarded to AiG UK via their website, due to word/character limits, Mr Terry is giving a talk on this very gastropod topic in Rugby, UK, on 3 July:http://www.rugbycreation.org.uk/forthcomingevents.htm

Instead of allowing my comments, reproduced above, he's tried to justify why he has hidden them - and posted a (polite) attack instead:"Jesus said “”Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” (Luke 12.14). I am happy to reply to comments on the topic of a given blog post here. But rationalfaith.com is not the place for me to judge an off topic debate, nor should comments be posted that continue disputes (particularly personal ones) that are off-topic that started elsewhere.Thus “he said, she said” (or “he said, he said” as the case may be) type of off-topics comments and disputes will not allowed to grow and proper here. If your comment is not published, it is likely either because 1. There are comments too far off topic, or 2. There are personal attacks which are never appropriate. (Which I discuss here: Misguided attacks by evolutionistsTry reposting after narrowing it and staying on the topic of the blog post."

Caldwell is basically LYING to his readers by implying that my longer censored post (I have taken on-screen photos of it 'awaiting moderation') was all 'off topic' or 'personal attacks' (because it discussed Sorensen after he had a go at me without naming me). Whereas the post included content that was fully on topic. Such as: "On Duane’s first response to me, readers should view my post in full rather than simply relying on Duane’s (highly edited) extracts. I would also make clear that I was not accusing Duane (on the basis of the 1 May post) of lying about people who criticise claims of ‘biblical’ creationists – but of apparently sanctioning that others do so ...". And: "In fact I see that what I have already said also fully addresses Duane’s second response. It appears that he misunderstood what I was saying about him – as I was not suggesting that Duane breaks (or feels he can ignore) the ninth commandment – as Bob regularly does. (But it was odd that Duane’s article failed to mention Exodus 20:16.)" And: "I accept that Duane is not sanctioning that ‘biblical’ creationists break the ninth commandment. Something that Bob frequently does."

My longer post was not in the least bit confrontational towards Caldwell (I sought to contrast him with Sorensen) - but he has STILL censored it. Because I dared criticise a fellow 'biblical' creationist - who had STARTED the conversation.

Ironic that the author of a post entitled 'Hell is for Liars' should misleadingly claim: "If your comment is not published, it is likely either because 1. There are comments too far off topic, or 2. There are personal attacks which are never appropriate." He should have allowed the comment but warned that any further comments that were ENTIRELY off topic or personal attacks would not be allowed. Note that Sorensen called me a 'furious atheopath' - but my reply addressing Sorensen's conduct has been unfairly zapped, even though I did not make empty accusations but supported them with the link to this BCSE thread.

Funny how 'biblical' creationists are almost invariably high class bigots opposed to free speech and open discussion or criticism of THEIR frequently extra biblical claims.

Bigots who side with other dishonest 'biblical' creationists against honest critics (this thread shows Sorensen's serial dishonesty but doubtless Caldwell is 'turning a blind eye').

This thread is again being notified to Caldwell via his blog and via a (wide circulation) email.

Caldwell unreasonably censored me under his post dated 1 May, as highlighted above. Readers were left with his accusation that I "misunderstood the whole point of the article" and DEPRIVED of my attempted reply that included the comment: "I accept that Duane is not sanctioning that ‘biblical’ creationists break the ninth commandment..." and my attempted reply that included "And your piece was entitled ‘Hell is for Liars’. A ‘liar’ being normally defined as someone who tells lies.".